seeing a 47 percent increase in profits during the build up to the invasion, which continued throughout the occupation. 2 decades on an iraq remains in tatters with sectarian all militia running a mock and deep political instability. with a war blame for the rise of islamic state and other global g had his groups and called for george w bush and tony blair to be tried as war criminals still unanswered as they enjoy the patronage of the lease that they help profit from the war launched on a lie. steve sweeney bringing us just some of the stories from the decades long conflict. you indeed can find more on our website. r t dot com, including former un weapons inspector, scott ritter chronicling his own attempts to prevent the war. in touch, in many other aspects of the conflict as well, drive the coming months in our special coverage. the 20th anniversary of one of

america's longest. of course, this is parking internet a ah ah, ah, we're all aware of whistleblowers whose lives are permanently changed when they make their revelations. many had to prison. many never work in their fields of expertise, ever again. many lose friends, family and the respected their peers. so why is it that some whistleblowers get the red carpet treatment? why are some lauded by congress and the media will look at the double standard between whistleblowers, who risk everything and people whom the media liked to paul whistleblowers,

who are little more than corporate spokespeople or individuals hoping to make a political point. i'm john, carry out who you're watching the whistleblowers. 2 2 2 2 francis hogan was a facebook data engineer and scientist. she appeared 1st on the american news program, 60 minutes, and then before a congressional committee on capital hill to say that facebook misled investors on how they handled heet speech misinformation, teenage mental health and violent content. why did she go public with her revelations? huggins said that she quote, wanted to make facebook the best company. it can be unquote. senator richard blumenthal, a democrat from connecticut, said that hoggett quote wants to fix facebook, not burn it to the ground, unquote. huggins got a handsome book deal after her testimony, and billionaire pierre omit you are the founder of ebay,

offered her the free services of his public relations firm. that's a pretty nice outcome if you're francis hogan. twitter whistleblower peter zacko had a similar experience known as much that go with a highly respected hacker who eventually found his way to employment at darpa. that's the defense department, super secret defense advanced research projects agency. from there he went to twitter as the director of information security, but he was forced out of the company in early 2022 after only 2 years on the job. it was 8 months later that much went to congress to complain that twitter was deficient in its handling of user information and spam bots. he added the twitter made false representations to billionaire elan musk, who at the time was in the process of trying to buy the company. much received a buyout from twitter that paid him $7000000.00. a gag order was attached to the settlement except where it concerned congressional testimony. so everybody's happy, much gets to make his revelations,

he gets to keep his $7000000.00. and twitter says they've already implemented his recommendations. they get to call him a disgruntled ex employee. how do we tell a real whistleblower from a fake one? how do we tell the difference between somebody who's jeopardizing everything from one who's trying to cash in? we're joined by louis clark, he's the ceo and executive director of the government accountability project. louis, thank you. so much for joining us. let's start with that basic of questions. how can you tell the difference between a real whistleblower and somebody who is trying to cash in or maybe make a name for themselves? for one thing is that sir, assumes that motive is. ready important, and i think that what we focus on when it comes in our doors is whether they have what they have to say in terms of the, the truth of the matter, what they're presenting, the law,

or the latest most laws protecting whistler's. what the key is, do these people have a reason to believe that what they're saying is, right? and so we focus on our, they write about what they're saying and then if they are, then we try to do something about it. the problem with motive is you don't always know what it's absolutely impossible to know what someone's motive might be. and i can't think of many cases that we've presented, or many cases that we've taken and an advocacy that we've gone forth with where the other side doesn't say something really negative about the motive of the person. you know, they're disgruntled employee or they just want to make money. i'd say, does want to make money is probably one of the most common

representations that the our opponent say about that was lower. so i don't think that you need to focus on the west a blow or what we focus on is the wrong doing that. that was for present just as an aside, when i 1st blew the whistle on the torture program, the government accountability project left to my defense. and one of the things that i learned very early on was that motivation really was irrelevant. my attorney at the time my gap attorney told me that that she wasn't going to focus at all on motivation. that the key was exactly what you just said. it is. is the information correct? is the information true. and then we just moved on from there. yeah, because what you need to focus on is the wrong doing what the other side often

does is they want to pick a path pick apart or try to find some kind of skeleton in the closet or whatever. so the focus is on the whistleblower. and if you focus on the width of law or what motivates whistleblower, then you can then not have to worry about what the whistler has to say. well, that's not our approach we put on trial the company or the organization. not that was lower. not only are you the ceo and executive director of the government accountability project, but you also helped to launch it. gap is now the most important whistleblower protection organization in america. gap represented me, as i said a moment ago after i blew the whistle on the ca torture program. i know that you're inundated day in and day out by people seeking gaps help a lot of people consider themselves to be whistleblowers and they're looking for somewhere to turn. how do you begin to wade through the information to separate the

real from maybe the not so real or the cases that require immediate attention from those that don't? well, of course you have there immediately examine the evidence. so you look at both the truth of what they have to say, and you also look at the credibility of the person coming forward. in many ways it's almost like you're, are you, you would, if you're hiring someone for your organization, you want to make sure that they're credible, they're honest, cetera. so you sorry, investigate them in the sense of the credibility. ready which you can established by just looking at the record. i mean they've got outstanding performance appraisals for 101520 years and that's common. and so, you know, they're really good employees and, and the credibility is usually stablish that way as well as well as talking to

peers talking to people who know them in a way that's obviously confidential. but you can find out from, you know, obviously peers what a person's reputation might be. so you do do that. that's just due diligence. and also a very important factor for the people that come to our organization is how important it is. and unfortunately, many people would turn away just because, yes, it was a line, but it's not significant enough for us to be engaged because we have limited resources . and so we do have to focus on the cases that are going to be more in the public interest or, you know, or certainly as soon as you suggested immediate concern. so someone's going to really be hurt if we don't step step forward and try to, to deal with what these whistleblowers are saying that some danger or public health

safety danger. for example, i mentioned in an earlier episode of the show that an israeli journalist, by the name of el press, published a book called beautiful souls, which is a cycle, logical look at for whistleblowers in modern history. he found that whistleblowers as a group tend to have a very highly defined sense of right and wrong form are far more well defined than the general population. whistleblowers tend to see things in terms of black and white rather than shades of gray. and they're willing to make their revelations without concern for their personal well being. is that your experience with some of these better known corporate whistleblowers as well? are they different than, than national security whistleblowers, let's say. well, i know i don't, i think that are the same in, in our experience, but where i would, you know, i love how the brand actually. but where i,

if there's a suggestion and is description that things are actually gray, then i have a problem with that because, you know, they're sort of an assumption there that everything's gray and there was lower or somehow seen in black and white when things are great and i actually don't see it that way. what i see is whistleblowers do have a keen sense of personal responsibility, keen sense of essentially, or taxpayer sensibility or the instability of people, you know, consumers, etc. i'm it. i. so i do think, i do think it's true, they see things in by why, but you know, when torture ever good, you know, when torture every ever acceptable. i mean, you, you can say, oh, let's gray because, you know, sometimes maybe torture words which i don't think is actually the, the truth. i don't think history has shown that,

but then say that torture did work. it's still bad. it's still, you know, it's still black, we still have to stop it. and so i do think that as you know, i do think they have a keen sense of veracity. i also think that there is another element of altruism that is also very prevalent amongst whistleblowers, which is a sense essentially they do have a sense of connection to people. they don't know, for example, consumers, taxpayers, citizens. i mean that you know, human beings. so i mean, you know, it's like and so for example, there was on peanut butter and, and salmonella and family nation and peanut butter. i mean, this man thought about his own, you know, what the public, you know that there are human beings out there. there are children out there,

they are going to be damaged by this product. and so he was moved to do something about that. and i do think that's very real or was the floors. they have a sense of connection to the larger humanity or the larger society which is often absent in, in. busy all those thousands of employees that see the same thing and don't do anything about it. and so i think that really they really stand apart in that sense . i also think there's another element to that i would bring up, which is the essential is that there is a huge percent whistleblowers who are they, they never intended to be. busy withers, all they're doing is their job and they're doing their job when the company or the government agency really doesn't want them to do that job. right. you know, they really don't want, they really are off the mation of the organization. and they're, you know, engaged in wrong doing,

engaging production. and so the person whose job is to audit that problem or audit the agency or have compliance with the other regulations or the rules of organization that you know, that all sudden the, the agency or the company doesn't want to follow the rules. you know, they're basically to the, you know, the enterprise thank you. louis clark, stay tune. we're going to take a short break and come back for more with louis clark, the ceo and executive director of the whistleblower protection organization, government accountability project. 2 2 ah, at this hour, american and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm iraq, to free its people. and to defend the world from great who's

with we will bring to the iraqi people, food and medicines in supplies. and fleeting with m m, my name is frank, i'm a retired from philadelphia, got in the movement in any age, 13 or 14 to we were violent towards those people because we believed that we're in this race. we were here 1st and this is our country being part of that movement. i got your sense of power. when i felt powerless,

we got attention when i felt invisible and accepted when i talked to level life after hey, is an organization that was founded by 4 o skinhead, neo nazi white supremacists in the u. s. in canada. and they found each other and they knew that they wanted to help other guys get out. is 2 parts to getting out of a violin. extremely good. the 1st part is dissing statement, which is where you leave the social group. and then the next part does d, radicalization, work belief systems. ology are removed. it was very impactful. when someone finally came along with no fear, no judgement, he heard my story did nothing to challenge it. 2 welcome back to the whistle blowers. we're speaking with louis clark, he's c e o and executive director of the washington dc based government

accountability project. we're talking about why some whistleblowers are vilified while others are celebrated even enriched for their whistle blowing. you've helped whistle blowers from every walk of life since 1978. are there differences in whistle blowing depending on industry or on whether a person is in government or in the private sector? due to whistle blowers in these 2 different areas approach their whistleblower, their whistle blowing differently. yeah, i think there are differences. for example, when, if you're talking about government, then essentially the employ or is really the american people. right? you know, or this is the boat or whatever. i mean is the fact that the matter is they have a constituency of the country. the sovereign is the people. and so therefore, in, in, in government you pretty much have

a direct line and also the office that you mentioned is another, you know, absolutely paramount standard that many, including yourself were following in, in your, in your worth of life. and so therefore that that has a higher standard in the private sector, you have to deal with the idea of profit, right? and so, in that regard, maybe you get great in the sense that the company itself has a duty to stop shareholders. but why wait a minute? what if that means that you had cut corners in terms of nuclear industry, for example, it costs more to be, you know, to essentially secure safety or, or establish safety or maintain safety. and you might want to cut some buyers in order to make more money in order to make shareholders happier. so i sense you do

end up having a obligation to be a part of the organization is making money for shareholders. at the same time, you have public responsibility in social responsibility at the corporation, which also is plays into this the, the thinking of a was lower. and so we do address in that sense little bit differently. i mean, how we would say is that basically. ready it's never helpful. essentially, if you look at it, let's look at, you know, ethics is good. business is often said in the corporate world. well, ethics is ethics, it might be bad business. but at that goal and that right, that's the standard. and so you do get some ambiguity in the private sector, the, you know, in the public as, as i guess, as, as much as you would in the, in the public sphere. and in your experience,

have you encountered whistleblowers who, when they blew the whistle, their parent company or parent governmental agency rather than attacking them or trying to silence them said, oh my goodness, we didn't realize this was going on. this is a serious issue. we're going to have to fix this right away. is that common? is it rare? what's your experience? unfortunately, i think it's rare, but i do think it, but it does happen. and, and in fact, in every organization, there are a lot of people who are blown. it was all and continued up the ladder. it's just that you know, that they got away with it in a way perhaps, or they, they were more effective and in how they pull it off. but the fact of the matter is it's all, its too infrequent. but i think increasingly,

increasingly, companies are realize the value was the line. good. i recently read an interview that you did in which you talked about how necessary whistleblower whistleblowers are in all walks of life. a toy company, for example, imported toys from china that were painted with lead paint, which we know when ingested can lead to brain damage and children. you talked about defense contractors in iraq, padding their expenses to essentially steal money from the american taxpayers. that's sort of an old story that goes on all the time. you talked about a pharmaceutical company making vaccines for children, despite having a compromised quality control system. the problems seem to just never end. and as a result, we need more and more whistleblowers. are you optimistic or pessimistic about the trajectory of things? is it getting easier for whistleblowers to make their revelations or is it becoming

more difficult? no, i actually i do think it's becoming easier. i mean that the there was a moralist poll. last year of was the blower data to the american public? you know, voters about what's a blog in 80 percent of the population of this country say that they're in support of strong whispered protections. well, that was not true 40 years ago. that certainly wasn't even true when you were so affectively. and so in an incredibly actually, you know, that wasn't true, it's it, but it's become you know, it's certainly become recognized as an important part of having an effective government. and also having essentially corporations that adhere to the law

lewis, you've seen pretty much everything there is to see in the world of whistle blowing . what advice would you give to somebody considering blowing the whistle on waste, fraud, abuse, or legality? is there a way to do it safely to protect oneself? is probably not too many ways that you can do it. oh, really protect yourself. i mean, even leaking information can be identified to a person. so it's never completely say, but i would say that the 1st thing someone should do is define health before they start the process of blowing that was so obviously if someone who's caught up in the job is just doing their job and the company doesn't, or the agency does not want them to do their job, then it might be too late. but for the for many was lower if they would seek counsel, experience counsel and counsel is not going to say, don't do that,

but it should be the counsel that says, okay, you want this to be out with that's do effectively. and that's think about the best way to do it and develop a strategy before you actually go public or go that said within, even within the company itself. i would actually like to reiterate that people ask me all the time if i would, if i would do something differently. if i were to sort of relive my own experience and i said the same thing every time. i would have sought out legal advice before blowing the whistle. instead i just blew the whistle and then i came to gap. i was reactive instead of being proactive, so my own advice is the same as yours. if a person is considering blowing the whistle, they really need to speak to an attorney who specializes in whistle blowing 1st and to try to protect himself or herself. yeah we, we have a number of clients who,

who have flown. it was 4 years, for example, at the department, homeland security. and it's unbelievable how much they're been able to accomplish, even though they were on 60 minutes. and even though they had new york times articles, by the way that we approached it and the way that we had their back and not only ourselves but many members of congress in service committees of congress, i had their back so they couldn't be touched. and so that we do work on, on trying to get as much support for the was the bore before that in before there was or is in danger. thank you, louis. that's all we have for you today. i'd like to thank our guests lewis clark. he's c e o and executive director of the government accountability project. i'm john kerry aku and this has been the whistleblowers. 2

2 ah, he's a pretty, who's a francis coming up with a whole bunch of money so my lovely, cheerless machine you happy with? why did think i got that up with the wouldn't read that up way. if that blue beet was an awful lot to

shift left in things, you could see it with not mitchell. i said with this is for more a conflict over our ends. the peace involving do not do it states and draw show. it's a question of all try shop, assert deep a sphere of influence in the former soviet space pop it holds in europe rolled and ukraine easy. so i'm sure, in order to update this, you know, these things doesn't want to allow us to happen. and this is the bought them both. what is going on? ah,

yes. now, can you? yes. so if it's deploy box near to nothing, you know them go up, you know, the new book is up, but out of the little shit it's gonna be a little showcase in. i'm going to let them know that sounds good to the boy. why is it up to a boy ah, [000:00:00;00] with a quote down in my chair. the says, laura doesn't want that much extra mom,

but i know it's up under that hole. what are you crazy? yes. or a ios for my friend with i was broken. i wasn't able to save anyone. i get nothing and i met wilson, 2013 and god, what's really in my way to make me start talking to willy waiting for me to have and i'm happy that trying to find is really little. so you can go to sleep. mom i had become my new friend. the one was not going to die or i was he is. i

would stay alive. it was they next to me. if i'm not crazy enough. i'm not gonna make it. ah, breaking news on our, at the hospital in the look, guns republic, it struck bobby ukrainian military using us supplied. hi, marge, rockets, killing overhead doesn't. i don't think forwarding to the russian ministry with civilian infrastructure is again, hidden. done both by t. f forces, whole ritz of fur leonard, take to the streets to protest the german decision of delivering time to you brain . on marking 20 years since the us invasion and